|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:58 am
 |
|
|
 |
Okay... you know what? I've been civil throughout the course of the debate. Text communication is nutorious for MIScommunication and MISunderstandings; that's why it is critical to ask questions to clarifiy points. That said, personal attacks are UNCALLED for and I would apprechiate an apology.
1) This one does NOT view her opinions in any more 'sacred' a way than anyone else. Nor does she think anyone who disagrees isn't 'worty' and on the contrary, I respect you guys immensely, and for you to treat me like s**t is more than a little hurtful.
2) This one's reason for disagreeing with the M&R party line (FYI, when speaking of the 'formerly popular opinion' I was speaking of the M&R regulars, not the whole world) make plenty of sense. How does 'having cuase for reasonable doubt' NOT make sense? If someone where to ask me to stake my life on the Traditionalist stance OR its counter, I wouldn't. I didn't 'side' with anybody. I never wholely disagreed with the Traditionalist stance nor thought it was 'wrong' and I think I said that several dozen times. What was being questioned was the extremist position that Traditional Wicca is the *only* Wicca on a number of points ranging from the nature of language itself, the nature of mysteries, the nature of authority, among others. In *prime* what I supported was a middle-ground comprimise that incolves making a DISTINCTION between Traditional Wicca and other forms (which may or may not be considered Wicca depending on various factors).
3) This one is *not* trying to be insulting by 'trumping' Tea or anybody else's efforts and I'm sorry if I caused any ruffled feathers. Frankly I had no idea *WHO* braught the bomb down and as I don't follow the argument like a hawk, I'm not entirely sure what even HAS been braught down anymore. Kudos for those of you that have the time, wish, and concern to sort through the mess, at any rate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:02 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:16 am
|
|
|
|
Starlock Okay... you know what? I've been civil throughout the course of the debate. Text communication is nutorious for MIScommunication and MISunderstandings; that's why it is critical to ask questions to clarifiy points. That said, personal attacks are UNCALLED for and I would apprechiate an apology. 1) This one does NOT view her opinions in any more 'sacred' a way than anyone else. Nor does she think anyone who disagrees isn't 'worty' and on the contrary, I respect you guys immensely, and for you to treat me like s**t is more than a little hurtful.
Frankly? I'm from the ED. When people say things I think are stupid, I will inform them that they're being stupid.
I already stated that I would apologize for any insults I may have thrown around concerning the point that I've conceded. I take back all the times I insulted members of ATC and other Wiccan groups. I apologize if I ever insulted you in particular for disagreeing with me on matters that I have now conceded.
Since I do not concede that Solitary practitioners can be considered Wiccan, I don't feel the need to apologize for disagreeing with you about that, nor do I feel the need to apologize for what I said in my last post. You were being obnoxious. Whether or not you intended to be obnoxious is completely irrelevant - you were obnoxious.
After a while, Starlock, you begin to grow tiresome. I had no problem with your disagreeing with me at first, as you seemed fairly intellegent and respectful. However, when we have a debate time and time again that always ends with you saying the same thing ad nauseum, I begin to get annoyed when I say something and you contradict it with your beliefs as if they have as much logical basis as mine.
Quote: 2) This one's reason for disagreeing with the M&R party line (FYI, when speaking of the 'formerly popular opinion' I was speaking of the M&R regulars, not the whole world) make plenty of sense. How does 'having cuase for reasonable doubt' NOT make sense? If someone where to ask me to stake my life on the Traditionalist stance OR its counter, I wouldn't. I didn't 'side' with anybody. I never wholely disagreed with the Traditionalist stance nor thought it was 'wrong' and I think I said that several dozen times. What was being questioned was the extremist position that Traditional Wicca is the *only* Wicca on a number of points ranging from the nature of language itself, the nature of mysteries, the nature of authority, among others. In *prime* what I supported was a middle-ground comprimise that incolves making a DISTINCTION between Traditional Wicca and other forms (which may or may not be considered Wicca depending on various factors).
You can say that you aren't siding anyone all you want, but the reality is that you do believe that solitary practitioners can be considered Wiccan, and you simply do not have any basis for that belief.
You call what you have a middle ground, as if this validates your beliefs. A middle ground between correct and incorrect is not something to strive for.
Quote: 3) This one is *not* trying to be insulting by 'trumping' Tea or anybody else's efforts and I'm sorry if I caused any ruffled feathers. Frankly I had no idea *WHO* braught the bomb down and as I don't follow the argument like a hawk, I'm not entirely sure what even HAS been braught down anymore. Kudos for those of you that have the time, wish, and concern to sort through the mess, at any rate.
You should take more care in what you say, perhaps.
I don't particularly like you, Starlock, but I don't particularly dislike you either, and I'm sorry if you feel that I hate you. You're annoying, but there are many worse things to be, and I imagine I'm a bit of a pain in the a** for some people. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:32 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 12:13 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 12:44 pm
|
|
|
|
TeaDidikai I'll deal with Starlock when I'm not seeing red. For what it is worth however, I can't be bothered to hate you. Neko_Bast Dose this meen I can call myslef Wicca? blaugh Just a little bit of kiddingDepends. wink If I drag up the thread where we were going rounds, I might be able to quote myself telling you I agreed, I just needed you to argue your case better.
sweatdrop I'm not that good at argueing online (as you might have noticed).......I have trouble puting my thoughts into writhing. Get me face to face though and I'd do better.
(and you did agree with me at the very end......) mrgreen |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 12:50 pm
|
|
|
|
Triste-chan I already stated that I would apologize for any insults I may have thrown around concerning the point that I've conceded. I take back all the times I insulted members of ATC and other Wiccan groups. I apologize if I ever insulted you in particular for disagreeing with me on matters that I have now conceded.
(nods) Apologies accepted.
Triste-chan Since I do not concede that Solitary practitioners can be considered Wiccan, I don't feel the need to apologize for disagreeing with you about that, nor do I feel the need to apologize for what I said in my last post. You were being obnoxious. Whether or not you intended to be obnoxious is completely irrelevant - you were obnoxious.
By no means apologize for disagreement. That's just silly. But I'd revise that last part to say that "whether or not I was intending to be obnoxious is completely irrelelvant - I was interpreted as obnoxious and that interpretation done by others is all that matters." Alas, intentions are quite difficult to deduce from online posting...
Triste-chan After a while, Starlock, you begin to grow tiresome. I had no problem with your disagreeing with me at first, as you seemed fairly intellegent and respectful. However, when we have a debate time and time again that always ends with you saying the same thing ad nauseum, I begin to get annoyed when I say something and you contradict it with your beliefs as if they have as much logical basis as mine.
To be fair (while attempting to not be insulting), I think we ALL get tired of each other. It goes both ways. For several months I did absolutely no posting in the FAQ thread becasue all that would happen is a big flame-fest. I was so weary and afraid I literally stopped posting on the topic that's how threatening and agressive you guys can be sometimes. It was probably my own mistake to re-enter the argument but I did so for reasons that felt right at the time.
Also, to be fair (and not intending to be insulting), claiming to have a greater logical basis can act as a shield for complacency and can make one arrogant. Just because the beliefs of one person do not seem 'logical' or 'rational' to another person, doesn't neccesitate that those are 'illogical' or 'irrational.' Often times beliefs are labeled as illogical/irrational, not because they don't have rationality, but because the other person disagrees with them and finds their particular way of 'reason' better than another person's way of reason. Setting aside the issue of 'betterness,' the end result is that this namecalling bars an empathetic understanding of the other side's argument.
A lot of this just plain can't be avoided. Everybody thinks their way of seeing things and assesing reasons is the best one. That doesn't make it the best one. Dont' take this the wrong way, but I've felt at times that some of you have been guilty of complacency and arrogant confidence in your own perspective at least as much as I have been. For instance, one could say that the position adopted in M&R is irrational because it goes against the most commonly accepted definition of Wicca (ie, words are defined by their usage and when a word usage becomes common enough, regardless of its 'accuracy' it becomes an accepted definition). It's all about perspective, and we're all biased in one way or another.
Triste-chan You can say that you aren't siding anyone all you want, but the reality is that you do believe that solitary practitioners can be considered Wiccan, and you simply do not have any basis for that belief.
There are several basises for that belief but I'm not going to lay that out right now. In essence, since I think there is plenty of cause for 'reasonable doubt' I err on the side of the majority opinion, also in part because demanding people stop calling themselves Wiccan is a tad unreasonable (not to say that name-bastardization is reasonable, but I think there are better issues to fight for than labeling; after all, the label of a thing is not the thing itself, eh?)
Triste-chan You should take more care in what you say, perhaps. I don't particularly like you, Starlock, but I don't particularly dislike you either, and I'm sorry if you feel that I hate you. You're annoying, but there are many worse things to be, and I imagine I'm a bit of a pain in the a** for some people.
True enough, more care aught to have been taken. But I take so much care as it is to remain civil in a debate, errs happen, wordings get sloppy, and messages are misinterpreted.
One could look at it this way... if there were no opposition, wouldn't you all be damed bored out of your minds? wink |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:17 pm
|
|
|
|
Neko_Bast (and you did agree with me at the very end......) mrgreen
stare
Starlock-
Merriam-Webster IFunction: pronoun Etymology: Middle English, from Old English ic; akin to Old High German ih I, Latin ego, Greek egO : the one who is speaking or writing -- compare ME, MINE, MY, WE
usage see ME
Pronouns are your friends. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:49 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 2:48 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 2:54 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 3:29 pm
|
|
|
|
Starlock Triste-chan Since I do not concede that Solitary practitioners can be considered Wiccan, I don't feel the need to apologize for disagreeing with you about that, nor do I feel the need to apologize for what I said in my last post. You were being obnoxious. Whether or not you intended to be obnoxious is completely irrelevant - you were obnoxious. By no means apologize for disagreement. That's just silly. But I'd revise that last part to say that "whether or not I was intending to be obnoxious is completely irrelelvant - I was interpreted as obnoxious and that interpretation done by others is all that matters." Alas, intentions are quite difficult to deduce from online posting...
It was kind of hard to interpret it any other way, but whatever.
Quote: Triste-chan After a while, Starlock, you begin to grow tiresome. I had no problem with your disagreeing with me at first, as you seemed fairly intellegent and respectful. However, when we have a debate time and time again that always ends with you saying the same thing ad nauseum, I begin to get annoyed when I say something and you contradict it with your beliefs as if they have as much logical basis as mine. To be fair (while attempting to not be insulting), I think we ALL get tired of each other. It goes both ways. For several months I did absolutely no posting in the FAQ thread becasue all that would happen is a big flame-fest. I was so weary and afraid I literally stopped posting on the topic that's how threatening and agressive you guys can be sometimes. It was probably my own mistake to re-enter the argument but I did so for reasons that felt right at the time. Also, to be fair (and not intending to be insulting), claiming to have a greater logical basis can act as a shield for complacency and can make one arrogant. Just because the beliefs of one person do not seem 'logical' or 'rational' to another person, doesn't neccesitate that those are 'illogical' or 'irrational.' Often times beliefs are labeled as illogical/irrational, not because they don't have rationality, but because the other person disagrees with them and finds their particular way of 'reason' better than another person's way of reason. Setting aside the issue of 'betterness,' the end result is that this namecalling bars an empathetic understanding of the other side's argument. A lot of this just plain can't be avoided. Everybody thinks their way of seeing things and assesing reasons is the best one. That doesn't make it the best one. Dont' take this the wrong way, but I've felt at times that some of you have been guilty of complacency and arrogant confidence in your own perspective at least as much as I have been. For instance, one could say that the position adopted in M&R is irrational because it goes against the most commonly accepted definition of Wicca (ie, words are defined by their usage and when a word usage becomes common enough, regardless of its 'accuracy' it becomes an accepted definition). It's all about perspective, and we're all biased in one way or another.
I'm sure if you asked the majority of people on the planet, they would say that Satanism is that religion where people worship the devil and sacrifice small animals or children, which shows exactly how much public opinion means in terms of definitions. Incidentally, 'antisocial' people are sociopaths, not people who like to be alone, and 'imflammable' means the same things as 'flammable.' Oh, and there is no 'good karma' or 'bad karma.'
Incidentally, telling me that I'm arrogant is ad hominem, not a logical argument, no matter how many paragraphs you use to say it.
Quote: Triste-chan You can say that you aren't siding anyone all you want, but the reality is that you do believe that solitary practitioners can be considered Wiccan, and you simply do not have any basis for that belief. There are several basises for that belief but I'm not going to lay that out right now. In essence, since I think there is plenty of cause for 'reasonable doubt' I err on the side of the majority opinion, also in part because demanding people stop calling themselves Wiccan is a tad unreasonable (not to say that name-bastardization is reasonable, but I think there are better issues to fight for than labeling; after all, the label of a thing is not the thing itself, eh?)
There are better things to fight against, too, so perhaps we should stop trying the whole 'this is pointless so stop arguing' thing in an attempt to win by default, hm?
Quote: Triste-chan You should take more care in what you say, perhaps. I don't particularly like you, Starlock, but I don't particularly dislike you either, and I'm sorry if you feel that I hate you. You're annoying, but there are many worse things to be, and I imagine I'm a bit of a pain in the a** for some people. True enough, more care aught to have been taken. But I take so much care as it is to remain civil in a debate, errs happen, wordings get sloppy, and messages are misinterpreted. One could look at it this way... if there were no opposition, wouldn't you all be damed bored out of your minds? wink
There will always be opposition, but you really are the worst kind. Too intellegent for me to call you a ******** and leave it at that, too wrong for me to ignore. I think I'd like you better if you were a complete moron, to be honest. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:39 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 1:06 pm
|
|
|
|
Fiddlers Green TeaDidikai Have I told you how much I love you? heart On occassion. wink Seriously tho, this has brought a point to the fore of my mind... Is it worth the conflict? I know internet etiquette is far different, however, recently, I have begun considering if the amount of animosity some of these issues can bring out is worth what point there is to be made... Is it a contest of right and wrong? Or a different battle that is fought? Is it just debating the histories of an event, or the principles behind them... confused
~Smiles~ Here's the thing. I can understand that folks can be a bit harsh- if not down right rude at times. Myself amongst them without a doubt.
However- How many times does someone have to be nice and have it slapped back at them?
You and I also seem to disagree as to the nature of conversation (speaking from experience- I'm open to the possibility that I am not gleening an accurate representation of your position).
In this debate for example- Reagun and I went rounds and rounds. It bothered Nuri to see my name at the end of the thread because she had to work at her posts.
As Triste points out- even though I never actually agreed with the party line- I was never "One of Them".
If you look back through some of the old debates you can see where I corrected folks, explained I agreed with them but that they needed to proffer a position better than the one they were offering- especially in M&R where the Chatterbox seems to be waiting in the wings. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 2:52 pm
|
|
|
|
Ah, and that tis my whole point.
This was mean as a general observation... that at times, our goals, no matter how lofty, and our actions, no matter how justified, are still the result of perpetual wear and ceaseless (in some cases trivial or asinine) conflict.
The desposition of the spirit, of one's blood pressure, and one's personal well beign seem more important to me currently than (if you will forgive the vulgarity) Winxoring teh Interweb.
My point is, at some points victory, or even the struggle, regardless of it's righteousness, takes a toll on the souls of those who participate. neutral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
